Francesco Torselli

Text proposed by the Commission

(27) This Regulation proposes a series of targeted amendments to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 for clarification and simplification, whilst preserving the same level of data protection. Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 provides that personal data is any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. In order to determine whether a natural person is identifiable, account should be taken of all the means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person directly or indirectly. Taking into account the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the definition of personal data, it is necessary to provide further clarity on when a natural person should be considered to be identifiable. The existence of additional information enabling the data subject to be identified does not, in itself, mean that pseudonymised data must be regarded as constituting, in all cases and for every person or entity, personal data for the purposes of the application of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In particular, it should be clarified that information is not to be considered personal data for a given entity where that entity does not have means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person to whom the information relates. A potential subsequent transmission of that information to third parties who have means reasonably allowing them to identify the natural person to whom the information relates, such as cross-checking with other data at their disposal, renders that information personal data only for those third parties who have such means at their disposal. An entity for which the information is not personal data, in principle, does not fall within the scope of application of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In this respect the Court of Justice of the European Union has held that a means of identifying the data subject is not reasonably likely to be used where the risk of identification appears in reality to be insignificant, in that the identification of that data subject is prohibited by law or impossible in practice, for example because it would involve a disproportionate effort in terms of time, cost and labour. An example of a prohibition against reidentification can be found in the obligations of health data users in Article 61(3) of Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council¹⁵. The Commission, together with the European Data Protection Board, should support controllers in the application of this updated definition by stipulating technical criteria in an implementing act. _________________ ¹⁵ Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2025 on the European Health Data Space and amending Directive 2011/24/EU and Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 (OJ L, 2025/327, 5.3.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/327/oj)

Amendment

(27) This Regulation proposes a series of targeted amendments to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 for clarification and simplification, whilst preserving the same level of data protection. Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 provides that personal data is any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. In order to determine whether a natural person is identifiable, account should be taken of all the means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person directly or indirectly. Taking into account the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the definition of personal data, it is necessary to provide further clarity on when a natural person should be considered to be identifiable. The existence of additional information enabling the data subject to be identified does not, in itself, mean that pseudonymised data must be regarded as constituting, in all cases and for every person or entity, personal data for the purposes of the application of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In particular, it should be clarified that information is not to be considered personal data for a given entity where that entity does not have means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person to whom the information relates. A potential subsequent transmission of that information to third parties who have means reasonably allowing them to identify the natural person to whom the information relates, such as cross-checking with other data at their disposal, renders that information personal data only for those third parties who have such means at their disposal. In assessing means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person, account should be taken not only of the means available to the entity processing the information, but also of means reasonably accessible to third parties operating within the same relevant sectoral or territorial environment. For data generated in the course of primary economic activities characterised by a strong territorial dimension, such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture, the combination of geographical, production-related and size-related variables constitutes a specific risk factor for the identification of the natural person and, as a general rule, supports maintaining the classification of such data as personal data. An entity for which the information is not personal data, in principle, does not fall within the scope of application of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In this respect the Court of Justice of the European Union has held that a means of identifying the data subject is not reasonably likely to be used where the risk of identification appears in reality to be insignificant, in that the identification of that data subject is prohibited by law or impossible in practice, for example because it would involve a disproportionate effort in terms of time, cost and labour. An example of a prohibition against reidentification can be found in the obligations of health data users in Article 61(3) of Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council¹⁵. The Commission, together with the European Data Protection Board, should support controllers in the application of this updated definition by stipulating technical criteria in an implementing act. _________________ ¹⁵ Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2025 on the European Health Data Space and amending Directive 2011/24/EU and Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 (OJ L, 2025/327, 5.3.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/327/oj)

Text proposed by the Commission

(30) Trustworthy AI is key in providing for economic growth and supporting innovation with socially beneficial outcomes. The development and use of AI systems and the underlying models such as large language models and generative video models rely on data, including personal data, in various phases in the AI lifecycle, such as the training, testing and validation phase and may in some instances be retained in the AI system or the AI model. The processing of personal data in this context may therefore be carried out for purposes of a legitimate interest within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, where appropriate. This does not affect the obligation of the controller to ensure that the development or use (deployment) of AI in a specific context or for specific purposes complies with other Union or national law, or to ensure compliance where its use is explicitly prohibited by law. It also does not affect its obligation to ensure that all other conditions of Article 6(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 as well as all other requirements and principles of that Regulation are met.

Amendment

(30) Trustworthy AI is key in providing for economic growth and supporting innovation with socially beneficial outcomes. The development and use of AI systems and the underlying models such as large language models and generative video models rely on data, including personal data, in various phases in the AI lifecycle, such as the training, testing and validation phase and may in some instances be retained in the AI system or the AI model. The processing of personal data in this context may therefore be carried out for purposes of a legitimate interest within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. This does not affect the obligation of the controller to ensure that the development or use (deployment) of AI in a specific context or for specific purposes complies with other Union or national law, or to ensure compliance where its use is explicitly prohibited by law. It also does not affect its obligation to ensure that all other conditions of Article 6(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 as well as all other requirements and principles of that Regulation are met. (The intention is to remove the words "where appropriate")

Text proposed by the Commission

(38) Article 22 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 provides for rules governing the processing of personal data when the data controller makes decisions which have legal effects or similarly significant effects on the data subject, based solely on automated processing. In order to provide greater legal certainty, it should be clarified that decisions based solely on automated processing are allowed when specific conditions are met, as set out in Regulation (EU) 2016/679. It should also be clarified that when assessing whether a decision is necessary for entering into, or performance of, a contract between the data subject and a data controller, as set out in Article 22(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, it should not be required that the decision could be taken only by solely automated processing. This means that the fact that the decision could also be taken by a human does not prevent the controller from taking the decision by solely automated processing. When several equally effective automated processing solutions exist, the controller should use the less intrusive one.

Amendment

(38) Article 22 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 provides for rules governing the processing of personal data when the data controller makes decisions which have legal effects or similarly significant effects on the data subject, based solely on automated processing. In order to provide greater legal certainty, it should be clarified that decisions based solely on automated processing are allowed when specific conditions are met, as set out in Regulation (EU) 2016/679. It should also be clarified that when assessing whether a decision is necessary for entering into, or performance of, a contract between the data subject and a data controller, as set out in Article 22(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, it should not be required that the decision could be taken only by solely automated processing. This means that the fact that the decision could also be taken by a human does not prevent the controller from taking the decision by solely automated processing. When several equally effective automated processing solutions exist, the controller should use the less intrusive one. For the purposes of illustration, decisions which produce legal effects concerning the data subject, or similarly significantly affecting the data subject, within the meaning of Article 22, include creditworthiness assessment systems applied to undertakings in the agricultural sector, algorithmic systems for determining premiums for agricultural insurance policies, including parametric insurance policies, automated systems for processing applications for payments under the common agricultural policy, and automated pricing decisions applied by platforms acting as intermediaries in, or selling, agricultural production inputs. In proceedings involving decisions of that nature, the data subject’s right to obtain human intervention pursuant to Article 22(3) shall include the right to obtain a comprehensible explanation of the factors determining the outcome and the right to have the decision reviewed by a person possessing technical expertise relevant to the agricultural sector.

Text proposed by the Commission

(39) In order to reduce the burden on controllers while ensuring that supervisory authorities have access to the relevant information and can act on violations of the Regulation, the threshold for notification of a personal data breach to the supervisory authority under Article 33 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be aligned with that of communication of a personal data breach to the data subject under Article 34 of that Regulation. In the case of a data breach that is not likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller should not be required to notify the competent supervisory authority. The higher threshold for notifying a data breach to the supervisory authority does not affect the obligation of the controller to document the breach in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 33 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, or its obligation to be able to demonstrate its compliance with that Regulation, in accordance with Article 5(2) of that Regulation. In order to facilitate compliance by controllers and a harmonised approach in the Union, the Board should prepare a common template for notifying data breaches to the competent supervisory authority and a common list of circumstances in which a personal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of a natural person. The Commission should take due account of the proposal prepared by the Board and review them, as necessary, prior to adoption. In order to take account of new information security threats, the common template and the list should be reviewed at least every three years and updated where necessary. The lack of a common list of circumstances in which a personal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of a natural person should not affect the obligations of controllers to notify those breaches.

Amendment

(39) In order to reduce the burden on controllers while ensuring that supervisory authorities have access to the relevant information and can act on violations of the Regulation, the threshold for notification of a personal data breach to the supervisory authority under Article 33 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should be aligned with that of communication of a personal data breach to the data subject under Article 34 of that Regulation. In the case of a data breach that is not likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller should not be required to notify the competent supervisory authority. The higher threshold for notifying a data breach to the supervisory authority does not affect the obligation of the controller to document the breach in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 33 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, or its obligation to be able to demonstrate its compliance with that Regulation, in accordance with Article 5(2) of that Regulation. In order to facilitate compliance by controllers and a harmonised approach in the Union, the Board should prepare a common template for notifying data breaches to the competent supervisory authority and a common list of circumstances in which a personal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of a natural person. The Commission should take due account of the proposal prepared by the Board and review them, as necessary, prior to adoption. In order to take account of new information security threats, the common template and the list should be reviewed at least every three years and updated where necessary. The lack of a common list of circumstances in which a personal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of a natural person should not affect the obligations of controllers to notify those breaches. Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 applies to the calculation of periods and time limits under Article 32 and 33 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

Text proposed by the Commission

Information relating to a natural person is not necessarily personal data for every other person or entity, merely because another entity can identify that natural person. Information shall not be personal for a given entity where that entity cannot identify the natural person to whom the information relates, taking into account the means reasonably likely to be used by that entity. Such information does not become personal for that entity merely because a potential subsequent recipient has means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person to whom the information relates.

Amendment

Information relating to a natural person does not necessarily constitute personal data for every other person or entity, merely because another entity is able to identify that natural person. Information shall not constitute personal data for a given entity where that entity cannot identify the natural person to whom the information relates, taking into account the means reasonably available to that entity and to third parties operating in the same sector or geographical context. Such information does not become personal for that entity merely because a potential subsequent recipient has means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person to whom the information relates, provided that, where the information refers to economic activities with a high degree of geographical concentration, the combination of geographical, production-related and size-related variables is taken into account for the purposes of assessing the resources that can reasonably be made available. (Our intention is to amend part of the article in question)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5a. ‘processing using artificial intelligence systems that involves the systematic generation of cognitive inferences concerning natural persons.’

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7a. In the cases referred to in points (a) and (c) of paragraph 2, the data controller shall apply suitable measures to safeguard the data subject’s rights and freedoms and legitimate interests, at least the right to obtain meaningful human intervention on the part of the controller, to express his or her point of view and to contest the decision. Human intervention is meaningful when the person in charge of the review has the requisite authority, knowledge and expertise to amend the contested decision and actively analyses the set of relevant data, going beyond the outcome produced by the system. In proceedings concerning access to agricultural credit, the setting of premiums for agricultural insurance policies and the disbursement of payments under the common agricultural policy, the person responsible for the review shall also possess the technical and agronomic expertise relevant to the proceedings in question.

Text proposed by the Commission

1. In the case of a personal data breach that is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller shall without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 96 hours after having become aware of it, notify the personal data breach via the single-entry point established pursuant to Article 23a of Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to the supervisory authority competent in accordance with Article 55 and Article 56. Where the notification to the supervisory authority is not made within 96 hours, it shall be accompanied by reasons for the delay.

Amendment

1. In the case of a personal data breach that is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller shall without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than four working days after having become aware of it, notify the personal data breach via the single-entry point established pursuant to Article 23a of Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to the supervisory authority competent in accordance with Article 55 and Article 56. Where the notification to the supervisory authority is not made within four working days, it shall be accompanied by reasons for the delay. (We do not intend to propose to change the timing which remains exactly the same, but only to express it in working days, therefore starting from Monday in the event that an accident occurs on Saturday or Sunday.)

Text proposed by the Commission

(3) The implementation of the means and criteria outlined in an implementing act may be used as an element to demonstrate that data cannot lead to reidentification of the data subjects.

Amendment

(3) In the context of a group of undertakings, data resulting from pseudonymisation shall no longer constitute personal data for an undertaking where: (a) binding intra-group arrangements and appropriate technical and organisational measures, such as logical segregation and access controls, ensure that the undertaking does not have access, and is not reasonably likely to obtain access, to identification keys or additional identifying information held by another group undertaking prohibit any attempt at re-identification, and ensure that the undertaking does not possess other means reasonably likely to enable the re-identification of data subjects; and (b) the undertaking is able to demonstrate the effectiveness of such arrangements and measures.

Text proposed by the Commission

Where the processing of personal data is necessary for the interests of the controller in the context of the development and operation of an AI system as defined in Article 3, point (1), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 or an AI model, such processing may be pursued for legitimate interests within the meaning of Article 6(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, where appropriate, except where other Union or national laws explicitly require consent, and where such interests are overridden by the interests, or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.

Amendment

Where the processing of personal data is necessary for the interests of the controller in the context of the development and operation of an AI system as defined in Article 3, point (1), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 or an AI model, such processing may be pursued for legitimate interests within the meaning of Article 6(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, except where other Union or national laws explicitly require consent, and where such interests are overridden by the interests, or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. (The intention is to remove the words "where appropriate")